7 votes

Why Can’t Americans Decide Which Type Of Light Bulbs They Can Buy?

{Editor’s Note: This is the 7th installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, Why Do Our Political Leaders Believe It Is Unnecessary To Thoroughly Audit Our Own Gold?}

Republicans portray Democrats as a political party that condones the use of government force, to influence an individual’s economic choices, thus limiting an individual’s economic liberty. President Obama, rightfully, has been chastised for the stimulus bills that he supports and the large amount of tax payer dollars that were, and continue to be, sunk into failed companies, which were unable to develop products that were able to compete in the United States or on the global market. Distaste for policies such as these were a significant contributor to the formation of the Tea Party movement and continue to reinforce the opinion that President Obama interferes with the free market more so than previous Presidents. It seems that most on the right conveniently forget that President Bush shared Obama’s propensity to utilize the government to manage the market and limit consumer choice.

George W. Bush signed the Clean Energy Act of 2007 in to law in December 2007. The law is full of mandates and regulations, which might be surprising to those on the left that claimed the Bush administration operated in a laissez-fair manner. A President that truly believed in free market to best address the wants and needs of the public would not have signed a law that raised fuel economy minimums by 10 mpg, increased the amount of ethanol in required in gasoline, and basically phases out the incandescent light bulb, among other atrocities.

The legislation does not actually spell out a ban on the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs. Although, the market share of the incandescent bulb is essentially phased out by way of raising the requirements of household light bulbs to achieve 25% greater efficiency. These regulations cannot be met by an incandescent bulb, thus the market share is virtually handed to compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The CFL light bulb has not earned their increased share of the market, but instead had it handed to them by the federal government.

Continue Reading

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

you still can

Texas made a stae law last year that makes it legal to buy and sell incandescent light bulbs.

Also you can get any size and watt bulb made in USA from here :


OK, I'll have to tweak my "cure" meme for this one.

A broken incandescent bulb might cut you during clean up. A broken CFL bulb might poison you.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Agenda 21

LED's are great for saving energy while lighting spaces.

However, LED light frequency ranges cause more damage than good to the human perception based behavioral response. Consciously, we see light shining, but subconsciously, the frequency waves emitting the light source are interacting with our bodies and circadian rhythms.

Imagine, a broadway show with stage themes set by LED lighting, how, brutal.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

You can buy them in Texas.

Read about it here. Newcandescent does mail orders.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Anyone ready to talk 'Free/Zero-point Energy' devices yet?

No? Still being suppressed under "National Security" false claims? They are? Oh, ok. Let's keep talking about lightbulbs then.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Ok I am ready,

Ok I am ready, if anyone would like to study up a little check out this site http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/zeropointenergy.htm. I think one of the biggest changes would be to promote hydrogen on demand technology for automobiles. It would clean up our environment much better than any other proposed program I am aware of. The only exhaust from a hydrogen on demand system is only water vapor. It is a system that can be designed as a retrofit to your current car. You would not have to buy a new car and drive around with a hydrogen tank bomb between your legs.
This type of system could literally fill your gas tank from your garden hose but distilled water is preferable.You could drive as far and as much as you like without creating pollution for the cost of a gallon or so of distilled water. The money you save from not going to the gas pump would go into your pocket and not the oil companies or the government.
Patents and working prototypes for this type of technology have been available for many years but suppressed by the government using Title 35 section 181-188. Basically what that is a technique that the government use under the guise of "National Security" to steal your patent and invention. They threaten you with putting you in jail for 10 to 20 years if you disclose or use your idea.
Now you would wonder why they would do that and the government would try to convince you that it doesn't exist and is all conspiracy theory. The simple but overwhelming counter to that is "follow the money". The government and the oil companies do not want to kill the golden money goose. The government cares far more about getting the endless gasoline taxes than cleaning up the environment and better the lives of its people by letting them keep more of their money. How is that Freedom Ninja? Don't get me started on thorium plasma batteries, Bedini generators or Nikola Tesla.


I couldn't agree more Rick

I have seen plenty of hydrogen retrofit engine demos and that alone would help so much.

However, I think this goes a bit deeper than just the money. It means that technology, such as Tesla's that was suppressed over 100 years ago, has been developed in secret. The Established governments will always have an upper hand if not simply through technology but also psychology. It doesn't take much deep consideration of 100+ years of tech development that could today seem "alien" to humanity.

In regards to Free energy devices, this technology as far as I am aware exists but in undisclosed and private labs with thousands of inventions just waiting to hit the market. Other than the implications this technology has for a cleaner environment, no more oil wars, etc., the fact that this tech basically "taps" into cosmic/source energy, the revelations that would follow would ultimately lead to a deep discovery regarding our very existence—everything is at it's core a frequency/vibration/energy/consciousness. Then come the revelations of how this knowledge of reality could and HAS been used to manipulate the World into a false belief of who and WHAT we are.

There would be a lot of "lightbulbs" going off in people's minds ;)

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin


Because that's what the UN decided (nuf said).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Sustainable Construction and Building Initiative (SBCI).

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

I love regulation

That hits the poorest people the most, so liberal asshats can say that they helped the environment.

They laughed

When I started stocking up on 48 packs of 100 watt light bulbs.

In 5 years I'll be the king of my block!

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Well you could always build your own


this shows you how

I hope somehow this one is worked out buy consumerism.


That is awesome.